|
Here's the problem with your reasoning on that specific play. Let's say Albert didn't miss the plate by merely an inch. Let's say that he missed it by a foot. Would you still deny the appeal? How about if he stopped halfway between 3rd and home? Of course you wouldn't know if he did being in the tunnel and all... well obviously that's ridiculous since Albert clearly knows better. But wait, wasn't there a world series game a long time ago decided on a similar call, something about hitting a run scoring single and not touching first base??
It's a slippery slope. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the expected call is the right call to make... but still you have to wonder where that line gets drawn between being close enough.... and not close enough.
kcs
I appreciate your digging deeply into the problem, for it specifically points up what I've been saying for 30 years on the national stage, longer in my local associations.
1. The purpose of the baserunning rules is to ensure the baserunner does not gain an advantage.
2. Realists always choose an "inch" on that play. It's called reductio ad absurdum, reducing an issue to the absurd. We argue it is absurd to call out a runner who misses a plate by an inch when there is NO question he is not gaining an advantage. The play forces those who cannot compromise into a ridiculous position.
3. Now, what if he misses by a foot? By three feet? I would argue we should use the current interpretation for errors. A runner leaves first early, gets to third, and realize he must return to first. He cuts across the mound and makes it back. After touchinjg first, he sees that the ball got away from the first baseman so he heads for second (the base he missed on his return) and is safe. Some, working on the principle of "last time by," argue that the umpire should not uphold the appeal. But that's wrong since the runner made no attempt to comply with the rules. Appeal at second; he's out.
4. That is the difference between the runner who stopped at second and the runner who missed the plate by an inch. One simply quit running, announcing he was happy at second. No big deal. The other knew he had a home run and just celebrated an inch too much.
5. If, in the umpire's judgment, the runner made no attempt to comply with the rules, the umpire can - and should - uphold an appeal. There's nothing unusual about that. The "distance" is not as important as the "intent."
6. Finally: I have been castigated because I don't reward good play. Whatshisname should return to my original, 1800-word message and re-read it to see how silly his riposte was.
Now, I know that has nothing to do with you, but I've promised not to respond "directly" to his posts. (grin)
BTW: I also believe he's windycityblue. Like so many criminals, he tried to keep his initials. He was Windy; now, he's "whats."
Lah, me.
[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 22nd, 2005 at 07:43 PM]
|